340
mainstreaming approach, in particular the Environmental Mainstreaming (EM),
represents an effective methodological setting, even if not always easy to
apply (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2009). According to UNDP, Environmental
Mainstreaming Strategy 2004, EM refers to the integration of environmental policy
considerations into core institutional thinking with other policies and related activities, as well as with coordination and harmonization to ensure policy coherence
(Bass 2008; Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2011). To be successful therefore, environmental mainstreaming must be adopted as an institutional culture of doing business (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2010). If mainstreaming is to feed into planning and
decision-making, it should permeate all types of planning frameworks involved in
the implementation of drylands issues, such as policies, laws, standards, institutions, technologies, curricula, funding mechanisms, programmes, projects, plans,
etc. At the same time, EM permeates the different stages of the formulation of these
frameworks: conceptualization and identification, design, appraisal, budgeting,
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (UNDP 2008).
Since the work of the World Commission of the Environment and Development,
in 1980s, mainstreaming environment into strategic decision-making was perceived
as an essential prerequisite of sustainable development, moving beyond the traditional idea of environmental policy being separate and discrete from other policy.
Thus, the Commission states: “The ability to choose policy paths that are sustainable requires that the ecological dimensions of policy be considered at the same
time as the economic, trade, energy, agricultural, industrial and other dimensions
on the same agendas and in the same national and international institutions”
(WCED 1987).
As well known among scholars studying the theme, there are at least three broad
perspectives of mainstreaming: (1) procedural mainstreaming; (2) methodological
mainstreaming, and (3) substantive mainstreaming. For an effective application of
EM to drylands, each of those is to be studied and implemented, both at global and
local level.
In turn, drylands themselves have been the subject of a mainstreaming, to integrate their consideration into all development policies and actions. For example,
“Drylands mainstreaming is a systematic practice to integrate drylands issues in all
decision-making processes, policies and laws, institutions, technologies, standards, planning frameworks, etc. and to ensure that they continue to be part of the
agenda in subsequent decision-making processes, implementation and revision”
(UNDP 2008).
Focusing specifically on the sustainable development and sustainability for drylands, the positive relationship between the services drylands provide and human
well-being deserves to be remarked, but also the risk of negative serious consequences from drylands degradation. Drylands ecosystems directly contribute to
basic materials for human use, security, and society cohesiveness as featured in
Fig. 19.2. In parallel, the capacity of the ecosystems to sustain those functions can
be undermined by natural, physical, and biological factors, both direct and indirect,
e.g., high population growth rates, poor socio-political environment, cultural and
religious barriers, market failures or market absence, flawed policies, and weak
M. Zortea and S. Lucatello
mainstreaming approach, in particular the Environmental Mainstreaming (EM),
represents an effective methodological setting, even if not always easy to
apply (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2009). According to UNDP, Environmental
Mainstreaming Strategy 2004, EM refers to the integration of environmental policy
considerations into core institutional thinking with other policies and related activities, as well as with coordination and harmonization to ensure policy coherence
(Bass 2008; Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2011). To be successful therefore, environmental mainstreaming must be adopted as an institutional culture of doing business (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2010). If mainstreaming is to feed into planning and
decision-making, it should permeate all types of planning frameworks involved in
the implementation of drylands issues, such as policies, laws, standards, institutions, technologies, curricula, funding mechanisms, programmes, projects, plans,
etc. At the same time, EM permeates the different stages of the formulation of these
frameworks: conceptualization and identification, design, appraisal, budgeting,
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (UNDP 2008).
Since the work of the World Commission of the Environment and Development,
in 1980s, mainstreaming environment into strategic decision-making was perceived
as an essential prerequisite of sustainable development, moving beyond the traditional idea of environmental policy being separate and discrete from other policy.
Thus, the Commission states: “The ability to choose policy paths that are sustainable requires that the ecological dimensions of policy be considered at the same
time as the economic, trade, energy, agricultural, industrial and other dimensions
on the same agendas and in the same national and international institutions”
(WCED 1987).
As well known among scholars studying the theme, there are at least three broad
perspectives of mainstreaming: (1) procedural mainstreaming; (2) methodological
mainstreaming, and (3) substantive mainstreaming. For an effective application of
EM to drylands, each of those is to be studied and implemented, both at global and
local level.
In turn, drylands themselves have been the subject of a mainstreaming, to integrate their consideration into all development policies and actions. For example,
“Drylands mainstreaming is a systematic practice to integrate drylands issues in all
decision-making processes, policies and laws, institutions, technologies, standards, planning frameworks, etc. and to ensure that they continue to be part of the
agenda in subsequent decision-making processes, implementation and revision”
(UNDP 2008).
Focusing specifically on the sustainable development and sustainability for drylands, the positive relationship between the services drylands provide and human
well-being deserves to be remarked, but also the risk of negative serious consequences from drylands degradation. Drylands ecosystems directly contribute to
basic materials for human use, security, and society cohesiveness as featured in
Fig. 19.2. In parallel, the capacity of the ecosystems to sustain those functions can
be undermined by natural, physical, and biological factors, both direct and indirect,
e.g., high population growth rates, poor socio-political environment, cultural and
religious barriers, market failures or market absence, flawed policies, and weak
M. Zortea and S. Lucatello